High Court

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. Nil of 2025

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Kanojia, learned A.G.A.-I for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The above noted Government Appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Budaun in Special Sessions Case No. 244 of 2022 (State vs. Sunil Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Faizganj Behta, District Budaun.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the first informant Asharfi Lal lodged an FIR alleging that on 21.1.2022 at around 10.30 A.M. his son Manveer, aged about 22 years, went on his motorcycle from village Khedadas to his clinic. Thereafter he went on his motorcycle along with some person, informing his neighbouring tailor, that he was going to Bajheda. Thereafter his dead body was found in the mustard field of Vijaypal at Bajheda. The motorcycle and his mobile phone could not be traced out. During inquest, he identified the dead body as his son Manveer. Some unknown persons had killed his son. On the basis of the aforesaid tehrir, an FIR was registered on 21.1.2022 at around 6.40 PM as Case Crime No. 35 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201 IPC against the unknown at Police Station Faizganj Behta, District Budaun.

4. During the course of investigation, the name of one Sunil Kumar came into light. Thereafter statement of the informant and other witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Spot inspection was made. Site plan and recovery memo were prepared. Relevant records i.e. photo nash, challan nash, chithhi C.M.O. were prepared and the body was sent for post mortem. The accused Sunil Kumar was charge sheeted under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC.

5. The Trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the accused Sunil Kumar under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC which was read out to the accused who denied the charges and demanded to be tried. Accordingly, on the basis of the charges framed, the prosecution proceeded to examine as many as 12 prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Asharfi Lal/first informant, who proved the written tehrir. PW-2 Dr. S.M. Junaid Mehandi proved the post mortem report. PW-3 Pappu Diwakar was examined as the witness of fact. PW-4 Ajab Singh proved Ex.-ka3. PW-5 Dinesh Kumar was examined as witness of fact. PW-6 Amar Pal was the witness of inquest. PW-7 Vijaypal was also a witness of fact. PW-8 Constable Intezar Ali has proved Ex.ka-4 to 15. PW-9 Vikas and PW-10 Rajveer were also witness of fact. PW-11 Suresh Chandra Gautam/the I.O. proved Ex-16 to 26 and vastu pradars 19 to 25. P.W-12 S.I. Digvijay Singh proved Ex-ka 27. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated that he has been falsely implicated and the witnesses had given a false evidence. He did not produce any defence witness and stated himself to be innocent and claimed to be tried.

6. Trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

8. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below: "Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.

16. After considering the entire evidence on record, it transpires that PW-1 Asharfi Lal, the first informant and father of the deceased is not an eye witness of the incident. The said witness in his testimony had deposed that it was the police officers who informed that Sunil had committed the offence and that is why he was deposing against Sunil. Similarly, PW-3 Pappu Diwakar deposed in his cross- examination that he did not see Sunil and Manveer together before the incident. PW-4 Ajab Singh and PW-5 Dinesh Kumar in their testimony stated that they were not aware about the dead body and neither knew its whereabouts. PW- 7 Vijaypal, in his cross-examination, deposed that the dead body was found in his field but how the dead body was thrown he was not aware. While he went to his field he saw a dead body lying then the Pradhan was informed to find out its whereabouts. PW-9 and PW-3, in their testimony stated that they saw the accused Sunil and deceased Manveer going together on his motorcycle for the last time before the incident but the said witnesses categorically denied having seen them together in their cross-examination. PW-2 Dr. S.M. Junaid Mehandi, PW-11 Suresh Chandra and PW-12 S.I. Digvijay Singh were formal witnesses and had proved the documentary evidence formally. PW-2 Dr. S.M. Junaid Mehandi, in his cross examination, stated that though he had done the autopsy on the body of the deceased but could not say on the basis of anti-mortem injuries that the deceased died due to strangulation or hanging. No finger prints of the recovered motorcycle was collected. The clothes, sandal and mufflar of the deceased were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As the prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence and no chain of events are complete so as to connect the accused in commission of offence, therefore, the judgement of the Trial Court requires no interference and is well considered and learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.

17. Leave to appeal application is rejected. Order on Government Appeal No. 153 of 2025 In view of the fact that leave to appeal application has been rejected. The government appeal is dismissed. Trial court is directed to return and this judgment be notified to trial court within two weeks. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Puspendra

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. Nil of 2025

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Kanojia, learned A.G.A.-I for the appellant and perused the record.

2. The above noted Government Appeal is filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Budaun in Special Sessions Case No. 244 of 2022 (State vs. Sunil Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Faizganj Behta, District Budaun.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the first informant Asharfi Lal lodged an FIR alleging that on 21.1.2022 at around 10.30 A.M. his son Manveer, aged about 22 years, went on his motorcycle from village Khedadas to his clinic. Thereafter he went on his motorcycle along with some person, informing his neighbouring tailor, that he was going to Bajheda. Thereafter his dead body was found in the mustard field of Vijaypal at Bajheda. The motorcycle and his mobile phone could not be traced out. During inquest, he identified the dead body as his son Manveer. Some unknown persons had killed his son. On the basis of the aforesaid tehrir, an FIR was registered on 21.1.2022 at around 6.40 PM as Case Crime No. 35 of 2022 under Sections 302, 201 IPC against the unknown at Police Station Faizganj Behta, District Budaun.

4. During the course of investigation, the name of one Sunil Kumar came into light. Thereafter statement of the informant and other witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Spot inspection was made. Site plan and recovery memo were prepared. Relevant records i.e. photo nash, challan nash, chithhi C.M.O. were prepared and the body was sent for post mortem. The accused Sunil Kumar was charge sheeted under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC.

5. The Trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the accused Sunil Kumar under Sections 302, 201, 392, 411 IPC which was read out to the accused who denied the charges and demanded to be tried. Accordingly, on the basis of the charges framed, the prosecution proceeded to examine as many as 12 prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Asharfi Lal/first informant, who proved the written tehrir. PW-2 Dr. S.M. Junaid Mehandi proved the post mortem report. PW-3 Pappu Diwakar was examined as the witness of fact. PW-4 Ajab Singh proved Ex.-ka3. PW-5 Dinesh Kumar was examined as witness of fact. PW-6 Amar Pal was the witness of inquest. PW-7 Vijaypal was also a witness of fact. PW-8 Constable Intezar Ali has proved Ex.ka-4 to 15. PW-9 Vikas and PW-10 Rajveer were also witness of fact. PW-11 Suresh Chandra Gautam/the I.O. proved Ex-16 to 26 and vastu pradars 19 to 25. P.W-12 S.I. Digvijay Singh proved Ex-ka 27. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. who stated that he has been falsely implicated and the witnesses had given a false evidence. He did not produce any defence witness and stated himself to be innocent and claimed to be tried.

6. Trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

8. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below: "Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

11. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

13. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

14. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.

16. After considering the entire evidence on record, it transpires that PW-1 Asharfi Lal, the first informant and father of the deceased is not an eye witness of the incident. The said witness in his testimony had deposed that it was the police officers who informed that Sunil had committed the offence and that is why he was deposing against Sunil. Similarly, PW-3 Pappu Diwakar deposed in his cross- examination that he did not see Sunil and Manveer together before the incident. PW-4 Ajab Singh and PW-5 Dinesh Kumar in their testimony stated that they were not aware about the dead body and neither knew its whereabouts. PW- 7 Vijaypal, in his cross-examination, deposed that the dead body was found in his field but how the dead body was thrown he was not aware. While he went to his field he saw a dead body lying then the Pradhan was informed to find out its whereabouts. PW-9 and PW-3, in their testimony stated that they saw the accused Sunil and deceased Manveer going together on his motorcycle for the last time before the incident but the said witnesses categorically denied having seen them together in their cross-examination. PW-2 Dr. S.M. Junaid Mehandi, PW-11 Suresh Chandra and PW-12 S.I. Digvijay Singh were formal witnesses and had proved the documentary evidence formally. PW-2 Dr. S.M. Junaid Mehandi, in his cross examination, stated that though he had done the autopsy on the body of the deceased but could not say on the basis of anti-mortem injuries that the deceased died due to strangulation or hanging. No finger prints of the recovered motorcycle was collected. The clothes, sandal and mufflar of the deceased were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As the prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence and no chain of events are complete so as to connect the accused in commission of offence, therefore, the judgement of the Trial Court requires no interference and is well considered and learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.

17. Leave to appeal application is rejected. Order on Government Appeal No. 153 of 2025 In view of the fact that leave to appeal application has been rejected. The government appeal is dismissed. Trial court is directed to return and this judgment be notified to trial court within two weeks. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Puspendra